Guarding Democracy: Judicial Activism in the Indonesian Constitutional Court Decisions in Regional Head Electoral Disputes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev1112Keywords:
Electoral Democracy, Judicial Activism, Local ElectionAbstract
This paper examines the extent of judicial activism exercised by the Court in resolving regional head election disputes from 2017 to 2020 and its implications for democratic electoral processes in Indonesia. Through a normative juridical approach and case study analysis of selected Constitutional Court decisions, this study highlights how judicial activism has been used to safeguard democracy. The findings reveal that the Court, in several instances, has expanded its jurisdiction beyond legal norms to address systemic electoral violations, including structured, systematic, and massive fraud. The Court’s decisions in cases such as Boven Digoel, Yalimo, and Sabu Raijua demonstrate its willingness to intervene in cases involving candidate eligibility, vote-buying, and administrative malpractice, often resulting in re-elections or candidate disqualifications. However, despite its proactive stance, the Court has shown restraint when dealing with pre- election violations such as money politics and civil servant mobilization, thereby raising concerns about the consistency and limitations of its judicial activism. The study underscores the dual nature of judicial activism: while it enhances electoral democracy by addressing unresolved violations, it also risks creating legal uncertainty and overstepping institutional boundaries. The trend observed in the 2017-2020 decisions suggests that the Court’s role in election dispute resolution is evolving, reflecting both the need for judicial intervention in electoral integrity and the constraints imposed by legal frameworks. Ultimately, judicial activism by the Constitutional Court contributes to the protection of electoral democracy in Indonesia, ensuring that regional head elections adhere to democratic principles and are free from fraudulent practices.
References
Amarini, Indriati. “Implementation of Judicial in Judge’s Decision.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 8, no. 1 (March 2019): 21–38. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.8.1.2019.
Amiruddin, and Rizki Ramadani. “Judicial Activism in Regional Head Election Dispute: The Practice and Consistency of the Indonesian Constitutional Court.” Substantive Justice International Journal of Law 6, no. 1 (June 2023): 56–70.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Agenda Pembangunan Hukum Nasional di Abad Globalisasi [Agenda of National Legal Development in the Age of Globalization]. 1st ed. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1998. , C. “The Proper Role of ‘Judicial Activism.’” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 42, no. 1 (January 1994): 1–15.
Budiardjo, Miriam. Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik [Fundamentals of Political Science]. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2008.
Butt, Simon. Indonesian Constitutional Court Decisions in Regional Head Electoral Disputes. Canberra, ACT: Center for Democratic Institutions, Australian National University, 2013.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 41/PHPU.D- VI/2008 (2008), on the dispute over the East Java gubernatorial election.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 41/PHPU.D/2008 (2008).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 115/PHPU.D-XI/2013 (2013).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 52/PHPU.D/2017 (2017).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 54/PHPU.D/2017 (2017).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 35/PHPU.D/2018 (2018).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 36/PHPU.D/2018 (2018).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 21/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 70/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 84/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 104/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 124/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 132/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 135/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision No. 145/PHPU.D/2021 (2021).
General Election Commission of the Republic of Indonesia. Decree No. 258/Pl.02-KPT/01/General Elections Commission (KPU)/VI/2020 on the Stipulation of the Extended Simultaneous Gubernatorial and Vice Gubernatorial, Regental and Vice Regental, and/or Mayoral and Vice Mayoral Elections in 2020.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “Dimensions of Judicial Activism in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court.” Journal of the Constitution 13, no. 2 (June 2016).
Faiz, Pan Mohamad, and M. Lutfi Chakim. Peradilan Konstitusi: Perbandingan Kelembagaan dan Kewenangan Konstitusi di Asia [Constitutional Court: Comparative Institutional and Constitutional Powers in Asia]. Depok: Raja Persada, 2020.
Gafar, Affan. Indonesian Politics: Transition to Democracy. 2nd ed. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar, 2000.
Geissel, Bernhard, Markus Kneuer, and Hartmut Lauth. “Measuring the Quality of Democracy: Introduction.” International Political Science Review 37, no. 5 (November 2016).
Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Johnston, W. A., Harvey Krahn, and Trevor Harrison. “Democracy, Political Institutions, and Trust: The Limits of Current Electoral Reform Proposals.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 31, no. 2 (June 2006): 165–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/20058695.
Johnston, W., Krahn, H., and Harrison, T. “Political Institutions, and Trust: The Limits of Current Electoral Reform Proposals.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 31, no. 2 (June 2006).
Josev, T. “The Nursery Years of ‘Judicial Activism’: From a Historian’s Shorthand to Media Catchphrase, 1947–1962.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 72 (May 2017): 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720170000072003.
Kmiec, Keenan D. “The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism.” California Law Review 92, no. 5 (October 2004).
Kosandi, M., and S. Wahono. “Military Reform in Post–New Order Indonesia: A Transitional or a New Subtle Role in Indonesian Democracy?” Asian Politics & Policy 12, no. 2 (April 2020): 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12534.
Kusdarini, E., A. Priyanto, S. Hartini, and S. Suripno. “Roles of Justice Courts: Settlement of General Election Administrative Disputes in Indonesia.” Heliyon 8, no. 12 (December 2022): e11932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11932.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum [Legal Research]. Jakarta: Kencana Media Group, 2005.
Pettit, P. “Democracy, Electoral and Contestatory.” In Designing Democratic Institutions, edited by Ian Shapiro and Stephen Macedo. New York: New York University Press, 2000.
Rodee, Carlton Clymer. Pengantar Ilmu Politik [Introduction to Political Science]. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2008.
Schedler, Andreas. “Elections Without Democracy: The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 2 (April 2002): 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0031.
Schaefer, David Lewis. “Procedural versus Substantive Justice: Rawls and Nozick.” Social Philosophy and Policy 24, no. 1 (January 2007).
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1947.
Supriyadi, and Aminuddin Kasim. “Design of the Special Election Court After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013.” Journal of the Constitution 17, no. 3 (September 2020).
Zoelva, Hamdan, and Aminuddin Kasim. “The Problems of Settlement of Disputes on the Results of the Regional Head Election by the Constitutional Court.” Journal of the Constitution 10, no. 3 (September 2013).
